The remote replacement of the Kyivstar SIM card led to the issuance of loans for 30,718 hryvnias: the court’s decision in the case.

Kyivstar subscribers changed their Kyivstar SIM card and received loans in the total amount of 30,718 hryvnias

The woman had her phone number blocked and her SIM card replaced remotely through a personal account in the “My Kyivstar” system. Later, she found out about the issued loans for the total amount of 30,718 hryvnias. This is reported in the ruling of the Ingulets District Court of the city of Kryvyi Rih, Dnipropetrovsk region, which was made public on June 4, 2025.

The woman is asking for invalidation of: the agreement dated July 1, 2018, concluded with Business Capital Financial Company LLC for the amount of UAH 2,500, valid until December 4, 2018; the agreement dated July 2, 2018, concluded with Wellfin LLC for the amount of UAH 1,200, valid until July 5, 2018; an agreement dated July 1, 2018, concluded with Prosti Zaymy LLC for the amount of UAH 2,100, valid until July 16, 2018; an agreement dated July 1, 2018, concluded with Maniveo Rapid Financial Assistance LLC for the amount of UAH 4,000 and valid until July 25, 2018; the agreement dated July 1, 2018, concluded with JSC KB “PrivatBank” in the amount of UAH 20,918, valid until June 30, 2020. According to the data of the Ukrainian Bureau of Credit Histories, in her credit history there is information about the disputed credit agreements concluded on her behalf in the period from 07/01/2018 to 07/02/2018. She did not sign the specified credit agreements and became a victim as a result of fraudulent actions. On June 22, 2018, two people visited her on the pretext that they were passing by the sea near her place of residence and informed her of their intention to return the money under the state insulation program. The refund was made using the Privat-24 program, for which a photo was taken of her JSC KB PrivatBank credit card (both sides). However, they were unable to return the money, so they said they would do it another time. To log into the Privat-24 application, she used the mobile number of the cellular operator PJSC “Kyivstar”. On June 30, 2018, the specified mobile number was blocked, I tried to restore it, but to no avail. In the time period from 06/30/2018 to 07/04/2018, she did not use the specified mobile number, and subsequently changed her financial number at JSC CB “PrivatBank” to another one. On January 18, 2019, she became aware of the signing of the said disputed loan agreements on her behalf.

PJSC “Kyivstar” in compliance with the ruling of the Shirokiv District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region dated 12.08.2020 provided information that from 29.06.2018 to 04.07.2018 services were provided to the subscriber without specifying personal data (anonymously), and therefore the company has no grounds to claim that the woman was the user of this phone number. However, on June 29, 2018, the SIM card was replaced with a new SIM card with the same phone number. On June 30, 2018, a remote SIM card change procedure was carried out through a personal account in the My Kyivstar system. According to the information provided by JSC CB “PrivatBank” dated September 11, 2020, on July 11, 2018, the client entered the phone number as a financial one through the terminal.

What was the court’s decision? The court rejected the woman’s claim. She did not make a claim to recognize the absence of the debtor’s obligation under the disputed loan agreements, and therefore the claim to declare the disputed agreements invalid is inappropriate, as it will not lead to the renewal of the violated right.

“The court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff substantiates her claims by the fact that she did not enter into disputed loan (credit) agreements, because she lost access to her mobile phone number, which received one-time identifiers (OTR passwords) necessary for electronic signature. At the same time, as a method of protection, the plaintiff chose the construction of invalidating disputed agreements. At the same time, failure to conclude involves the lack of confirmation of the borrower’s will to enter into disputed agreements Such an agreement, while the agreement has taken place, and the parties have expressed their will to change the civil rights and obligations. The consequences of the invalidity cannot be applied to the deed, which has not been carried out. The invalidity of the agreement is an improper way of defense in the case of the denial of the fact of the conclusion of the deed (forgery of the signature). deed, and during the resolution of the dispute about the debtor’s lack of obligation under the agreement. The claimant did not declare the debtor’s lack of obligation under the disputed loan agreements, and therefore the claim to invalidate the disputed agreements is inappropriate, as it will not lead to the renewal of the violated right. Based on the established factual circumstances of the case, the requirements of the current legislation, assessing the appropriateness, admissibility, and reliability of each piece of evidence, as well as sufficiency and mutual connection of the evidence in their totality, the court came to the conclusion that the satisfaction of the claims should be refused completely.